Ok, I am SO TIRED of hearing about how wealthy Americans need to pay their fair share. Why is it at all "fair" for wealthy americans to pay ANYTHING towards the prosperity of less wealthy americans. After all, having more money does not constitute an objective moral reason to give it away to other people. Come to think of it, I'm not sure that most liberal thinkers even deserve to believe an any objective ethical standard. What would they base this objective morality on anyway? The idea that all men are created equal? Since when does an idea constitute a moral objective? Why would it be any better to take money from the rich than take it from the poor? because the poor have more votes? What if the tea party has more votes, does that make them right? The fact is, that the only place one can find to base an objective ethical standard is in something supernatural. How can something natural have any absolute sway over someone. Even mob rule, which is basically the definition of democracy, from which the democrats get their name, should have no objective sway on anyone. Although mobs can force people to do things, the people who they push around don't have an objective moral responsibility to comply. So, how can Obama say that wealthy Americans "need to pay their fair share"? Does he have an objective reason that gives basis to this statement? Where on earth could he get such a reason, unless he had a supernatural being creating such an ethical responsibility? He seems to think that people should agree with him because he is right, but I've never heard anyone come up with how he could be right. The only way one can be right is if there is an objective truth, which Liberals are often want to deny the existence of.
Now, there is one thing that could still hold sway over our politicians, and that is the constitution. I, however, fail to see how the constitution could hold sway over anyone unless there was an objective moral reason that the politicians oath to keep and uphold the constitution is binding. That reason, I would argue, is God. If you know me, you probably know that I am speaking of the Christian God, the God described in the Bible. However, leaving this aside for just a moment, lets not specify who this God who holds objective moral sway over all of mankind and merely postulate that he does exist. If this were the case, then people would have to obey his commands. Now let us go further and say the bible contains all the commands of God. If this is the case, then people have an objective ethical responsibility to keep their word and not back off on their promises. Furthermore, the constitution, which is not only the law of the land and therefore the next authority under God according to the Bible, is also made even stronger by the fact that it is taken from the Bible. In this case, although God gives individuals the responsibility to care for the poor, neither the constitution nor the Bible gives such a responsibility to the state. Therefore, although Obama is right to think that the rich need to take care of the poor, he is wrong in trying to convince people that they should feel a moral obligation to have the government do it for them, which is all the conservatives of american want to change. Conservatives merely want to take the job of caring for the poor away from the government (which has been doing an extremely bad job of it) and move it back to the people, who are the ones who are responsible for that anyway.
Now, of course, I should return to the other possibility, which is that the Christian God does not exist and that there is no objective morality. If this is the case, then it doesn't matter whether anyone helps the poor or whether anyone ends up rich, because without God, nothing matters at all. Although some Atheists vainly search for an escape from Nihilism, their attempts always end in arbitrarily choosing something they would wish to call objective morality, which can't be objective because their basis is arbitrary. The only way anything could have sway over us is if it made us, developed us, cared for us, and loves us and is greater than us in every way and has the power to judge us for eternity. Either way, Obama has no right to say what he says.
Now, there is one thing that could still hold sway over our politicians, and that is the constitution. I, however, fail to see how the constitution could hold sway over anyone unless there was an objective moral reason that the politicians oath to keep and uphold the constitution is binding. That reason, I would argue, is God. If you know me, you probably know that I am speaking of the Christian God, the God described in the Bible. However, leaving this aside for just a moment, lets not specify who this God who holds objective moral sway over all of mankind and merely postulate that he does exist. If this were the case, then people would have to obey his commands. Now let us go further and say the bible contains all the commands of God. If this is the case, then people have an objective ethical responsibility to keep their word and not back off on their promises. Furthermore, the constitution, which is not only the law of the land and therefore the next authority under God according to the Bible, is also made even stronger by the fact that it is taken from the Bible. In this case, although God gives individuals the responsibility to care for the poor, neither the constitution nor the Bible gives such a responsibility to the state. Therefore, although Obama is right to think that the rich need to take care of the poor, he is wrong in trying to convince people that they should feel a moral obligation to have the government do it for them, which is all the conservatives of american want to change. Conservatives merely want to take the job of caring for the poor away from the government (which has been doing an extremely bad job of it) and move it back to the people, who are the ones who are responsible for that anyway.
Now, of course, I should return to the other possibility, which is that the Christian God does not exist and that there is no objective morality. If this is the case, then it doesn't matter whether anyone helps the poor or whether anyone ends up rich, because without God, nothing matters at all. Although some Atheists vainly search for an escape from Nihilism, their attempts always end in arbitrarily choosing something they would wish to call objective morality, which can't be objective because their basis is arbitrary. The only way anything could have sway over us is if it made us, developed us, cared for us, and loves us and is greater than us in every way and has the power to judge us for eternity. Either way, Obama has no right to say what he says.
No comments:
Post a Comment